10 story hole in WTC 7

[Par]

There is no evidence that debris damage contributed to the collapse.

bychanging the subject.

Architect, Par, Dave, twinstead and now you, are trying to ignore and bury post #2382 by changing the subject and/or attacking me.

I’m not trying to ignore it; I’m saying that it’s entirely academic. To get my previous question answered, I had to ask it on five separate occasions. Hopefully the answer to this one will be somewhat more forthcoming, but, anyway, here’s try number two:

What is a more parsimonious explanation?

 

[Architect]

Typical lawyer, demanding answers and posing akward questions! Curses!


Right, I'll leave you in peace on this thread for now....

 

[Miragememories]

No, I am certainly not trying to change the subject, to bury a post, or to attack you. I was simply pointing out that answering a proper question as part of a discussion would have been a prudent thing to do. You do your credibility no favours when you avoid a legitimate question.

Nor does it help to constantly restate the same old nonsense that you have stated a hundred times before. Repetition does not make it true.

And calling it nonsense doesn't make that true either!

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Face it MM and Chris. The 'official story' is laid out in minute detail for all to see. It's not hidden, it is available for critique by anybody on Earth.

Nobody can know 100% for sure about anything, but what competing theory has been laid out in as much excruciating detail? How many legitimately peer-reviewed papers, or any for that matter, have been submitted that make more sense than the 'official story' to experts in the relevant fields?

Your movement isn't making many fans out of the millions of interested laymen like me.

Why do you think that is?

Maybe I see the answer to your question in your chosen avatar..ya think..or maybe ya don't.

Regarding WTC7 I see avoidance of the obvious in excruciating detail.

It perplexes me how people can watch a building clearly DROP and yet they can dismiss it with lame explanations. This is an amazing feat even when overcome by too much brew.

Buildings don't DROP. Well they do with the aid of controlled demolitions!

They might partially collapse or disintegrate over time but die a quick death? A modern square block 47-storey building? Come on. They must pay you well to agree to the OCT.

I realize both sides are married to their beliefs but one has to wonder if you get paid to poke yourself in the eyes?

MM

 

[LashL]

And calling it nonsense doesn't make that true either!

MM

Except that it is, as has already been shown.

 

[Miragememories]

Except that it is, as has already been shown.

Again. You state things like the very act of stating them makes them so.

Such omnipotence must be pleasing but it only works in the dreamland they obviously originate from C.

You continue to see that which you wish to see.

My mind has not been warped by having to defend the guilty so I'm free to see things clearly.

I really wish you could knock that chip off your shoulder, forget about your ego and actually re-examine what's gone down.

MM

 

[Architect]

Buildings don't DROP. Well they do with the aid of controlled demolitions!

Damn. I'm back.


MM. Let me be quite clear. I'm an architect who works on tall buildings. Amongst the subjects I had to study at university were structures, and I have 15 years of post qualification experience. Humour me, and assume that I do actually understand the issues at hand.

So tell me. How do you believe that the collapse should have occured, and what do you mean by "drop"?

 

[LashL]

Again. You state things like the very act of stating them makes them so.

Such omnipotence must be pleasing but it only works in the dreamland they obviously originate from C.

You continue to see that which you wish to see.

My mind has not been warped by having to defend the guilty so I'm free to see things clearly.

I really wish you could knock that chip off your shoulder, forget about your ego and actually re-examine what's gone down.

MM

Tsk, tsk, miragememories. Such silly and baseless personal attacks. You really ought to work on your repertoire. Not only are your silly and baseless personal attacks against the rules, they are also boring.

I would suggest that you make efforts to absorb facts and evidence and use those as the starting point of your research. Clinging to preposterous conspiracy theories that are founded upon nothing but innuendo, supposition, cherrypicking, distortion, quote-mining, and outright deceit, as members of the "Truth" movement do, is lazy and intellectually dishonest.

Reality, facts, evidence. These are the things that you should strive toward.

On the up side, at least you appear to have abandoned your prior lies about me, in that you appear to acknowledge in this most recent post of yours that I am a lawyer and not a secretary.

But what is it that compels you to insinuate that my mind has "been warped by having to defend the guilty"? This appears to be another stellar example of either your lack of reading comprehension skills or your lack of research skills. I am not sure which.

 

[twinstead]

Maybe I see the answer to your question in your chosen avatar..ya think..or maybe ya don't.

Regarding WTC7 I see avoidance of the obvious in excruciating detail.

It perplexes me how people can watch a building clearly DROP and yet they can dismiss it with lame explanations. This is an amazing feat even when overcome by too much brew.

Buildings don't DROP. Well they do with the aid of controlled demolitions!

They might partially collapse or disintegrate over time but die a quick death? A modern square block 47-storey building? Come on. They must pay you well to agree to the OCT.

I realize both sides are married to their beliefs but one has to wonder if you get paid to poke yourself in the eyes?

MM

Oh give me a freakin' break. You are basing your entire argument on what the collapses LOOKED like, all the while ignoring the countless experts who have gone on record, and describing IN MINUTE DETAIL how a building could just 'drop' without CD.

If they pay ME to agree to the OCT, the must pay the VAST MAJORITY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ON EARTH to agree.

Talk about big pockets...

 

[Miragememories]

Tsk, tsk, miragememories. Such silly and baseless personal attacks. You really ought to work on your repertoire. Not only are your silly and baseless personal attacks against the rules, they are also boring.

I would suggest that you make efforts to absorb facts and evidence and use those as the starting point of your research. Clinging to preposterous conspiracy theories that are founded upon nothing but innuendo, supposition, cherrypicking, distortion, quote-mining, and outright deceit, as members of the "Truth" movement do, is lazy and intellectually dishonest.

Reality, facts, evidence. These are the things that you should strive toward.

On the up side, at least you appear to have abandoned your prior lies about me, in that you appear to acknowledge in this most recent post of yours that I am a lawyer and not a secretary.

But what is it that compels you to insinuate that my mind has "been warped by having to defend the guilty"? This appears to be another stellar example of either your lack of reading comprehension skills or your lack of research skills. I am not sure which.

Personal?

Well maybe if you weren't so certain in your remarks I could be less emphatic in my responses.

And please..that reply was hardly an attack. You are so melodramatic.

I'm sorry to be boring. You find so much to be boring.

Thank you for the advice. I will file away all the preposterous conspiracy theories like those proposed by the 911 Commission, NIST, your partner, etc.

Apparently you rejoice in labeling those who don't cling to your obsessive beliefs. Fair enough. It's a free world. Sacrificing your individuality to become an accepted member of the gang is your perogative.

Reality, facts and evidence. Hmm. So as a lawyer, you honestly place those ahead of what your client might have to say that conflicts with them?

I thought lawyers were less concerned with the truth and more concerned with getting their clients acquitted?

Regarding your professional status, I have no way of knowing who you are or what you say you are. You can pretend to be any kind of professional you wish.

Lawyers like to influence those who sit in judgment, whether they be the lone judge or the 12 person jury. They don't care so much about the truth as much as what they can make the listener think. I've served on 2 juries so I'm not totally inexperienced in this phenomenon.

I've observed many of your posts. They are nothing but calculated performances that reveal little concern about thoughtful content and every concern about power presentation. It may please the JREF fan club, but I've met many people at higher levels than yourself and your style only comes across as very juvenile and that of a camp follower.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Oh give me a freakin' break. You are basing your entire argument on what the collapses LOOKED like, all the while ignoring the countless experts who have gone on record, and describing IN MINUTE DETAIL how a building could just 'drop' without CD.

If they pay ME to agree to the OCT, the must pay the VAST MAJORITY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ON EARTH to agree.

Talk about big pockets...

Why should I give you a break?

Living in fantasyland, you're impregnable. The silent majority can be interpreted as the supportive vast majority.

I'm far from basing my argument on what the collapses "looked like".

All these OCT WTC 1,2 & 7 collapse hypotheses are based on the belief of a 'DROP'.

NIST, Greening etc., all those who base their belief that the collapse mechanism was a wave of overwhelming kinetic energy, have to accept the concept of a 'sudden DROP'.

A 'DROP' that in the cases of WTC 1 and 2, was so fast as to generate enough kinetic energy that the intact structure below offered virtually no resistance.

A 'DROP' that mysteriously occurs through a one storey height because damaged and undamaged columns bearing the upper load of the building suddenly 'SNAP' in unison.

Columns that weren't struck by any new impacts.

The only remaining threat to these columns was heat. Heat which tends to effect the properties of steel gradually, rather than suddenly.

Supposedly, taking whomever's pet theory you wish, whether it be NIST's, Greening's etc., somehow this heat threat managed to cause instantaneous structural failure so rapidly (SNAP) that the upper structures of WTC 1 and 2 were able to achieve this incredible high speed 'DROP' necessary to impose sufficient kinetic energy on the solid, stable, intact structure below and force it to collapse with virtually no ability to resist.

And this is not fantasy?

MM

 

[twinstead]

Why should I give you a break?

Living in fantasyland, you're impregnable. The silent majority can be interpreted as the supportive vast majority.

I'm far from basing my argument on what the collapses "looked like".

All these OCT WTC 1,2 & 7 collapse hypotheses are based on the belief of a 'DROP'.

NIST, Greening etc., all those who base their belief that the collapse mechanism was a wave of overwhelming kinetic energy, have to accept the concept of a 'sudden DROP'.

A 'DROP' that in the cases of WTC 1 and 2, was so fast as to generate enough kinetic energy that the intact structure below offered virtually no resistance.

A 'DROP' that mysteriously occurs through a one storey height because damaged and undamaged columns bearing the upper load of the building suddenly 'SNAP' in unison.

Columns that weren't struck by any new impacts.

The only remaining threat to these columns was heat. Heat which tends to effect the properties of steel gradually, rather than suddenly.

Supposedly, taking whomever's pet theory you wish, whether it be NIST's, Greening's etc., somehow this heat threat managed to cause instantaneous structural failure so rapidly (SNAP) that the upper structures of WTC 1 and 2 were able to achieve this incredible high speed 'DROP' necessary to impose sufficient kinetic energy on the solid, stable, intact structure below and force it to collapse with virtually no ability to resist.

And this is not fantasy?

MM

There are qualified experts who disagree. Take it up with them

 

[Architect]

Why should I give you a break?

Living in fantasyland, you're impregnable. The silent majority can be interpreted as the supportive vast majority.

I'm far from basing my argument on what the collapses "looked like".

All these OCT WTC 1,2 & 7 collapse hypotheses are based on the belief of a 'DROP'.

NIST, Greening etc., all those who base their belief that the collapse mechanism was a wave of overwhelming kinetic energy, have to accept the concept of a 'sudden DROP'.

A 'DROP' that in the cases of WTC 1 and 2, was so fast as to generate enough kinetic energy that the intact structure below offered virtually no resistance.

A 'DROP' that mysteriously occurs through a one storey height because damaged and undamaged columns bearing the upper load of the building suddenly 'SNAP' in unison.

Columns that weren't struck by any new impacts.

The only remaining threat to these columns was heat. Heat which tends to effect the properties of steel gradually, rather than suddenly.

Supposedly, taking whomever's pet theory you wish, whether it be NIST's, Greening's etc., somehow this heat threat managed to cause instantaneous structural failure so rapidly (SNAP) that the upper structures of WTC 1 and 2 were able to achieve this incredible high speed 'DROP' necessary to impose sufficient kinetic energy on the solid, stable, intact structure below and force it to collapse with virtually no ability to resist.

And this is not fantasy?

MM

MM

As I've mentioned before, I'm a qualified architect working on tall buildings and have studied structures at university level. If you want to take this onto a new thread then I'm willing to debate it with you. I would imagine that some of the others who have studied structures will as well. Just to warn you, however, that we will be talking structural mechanics and figures in some depth, and will expect you to do likewise. Personal incredulity will not cut it.


ETA: Mackay and others; nane of yer imperial pish. Metric this time, eh?

 

[twinstead]

MM there comes a time when arguments from incredulity just cease to cut it. It's time now to put up or shut up.

If you think you have the education and experience to debate your theory with the myriad of experts who have no problem with the 'drop' then do so.

Until then, with all due respect, STFU

 

[Miragememories]

MM there comes a time when arguments from incredulity just cease to cut it. It's time now to put up or shut up.

If you think you have the education and experience to debate your theory with the myriad of experts who have no problem with the 'drop' then do so.

Until then, with all due respect, STFU

With all due respect twinstead and Architect, the experts are pushing hypotheses.

There is not enough firm data to firmly argue the actual collapse mechanism with any certainly.

NIST admits they have not more than a hypothesis.

They created 10,000 final pages from probably 100,000 pages of raw notes and even then they stop at 'collapse initiation'!

The NIST report is founded on what they feel are an accumulation of logical assumptions because they lack the accumulation of real data that would serve them more credibly.

One example in particular, I just read here, today, here in the JREF Conspiracy Forum, a post from Pilots for Truth, this pilot trainer who used a 737 simulator, an aircraft even more maneuverable than those that supposedly crashed into WTC 1 & 2, setup New York City in the simulator and had highly skilled commercial pilots attempt collisions with the towers.

They all failed.

It was too difficult at those speeds. Finally, on his 10th attempt, the trainer succeeded in colliding with the WTC but he had to reduce his speed to close to landing speed. NIST had to use extreme aircraft speed to make their collapse simulation work!

I understand the enormity of the problems faced by NIST in trying to analyze the collapses. They assumed some facts, dismissed others, made educated guesses and ultimately derived a simulation that achieved a collapse initiation.

Some experts feel the lengths NIST went to in accepting some values while discarding others was quite satisfactory. Considering all the parameters that effected the end result, and the magnitude of the ranges of acceptability at play, the assumptions, the lack of hard data, the limitations of the model, the bias of a forgone conclusion that impact and fire damage most certainly lead to collapse initiation, etc., the experts simply can't credibly argue through the use of model simulation, some laboratory tests and academia alone that they know the answer!

If it was as simple as presenting formulae and technical explanations as you folks keep attempting to do, NIST wouldn't have wasted so much money, time and effort on generating that 10,000 page tome.

Their defenders are merely regurgitating the NIST document and aren't adding anything new..that hardly counts as numerous independent experts doing their own critical examination. That's just 'rubber stamping'.

Even Greening, a fomer favorite son here, frequently sourced as an argument for explaining the collapses, he now has stepped back and is highly critical of the NIST WTC Collapse Report.

MM

 

[LashL]

*sigh*

Personal?

Yes, it is "personal" when you choose to make the focus of your post about another poster rather than the substance of their post.

Well maybe if you weren't so certain in your remarks I could be less emphatic in my responses.

The only thing "emphatic" about the responses you refer to is that they are emphatically baseless, factless, and devoid of meaningful content.

And please..that reply was hardly an attack. You are so melodramatic.

By definition, posting such as you did is a "personal attack" in that it focuses on criticizing another poster rather than the content of the post. There is certainly no melodrama on my end. I am simply setting you straight on basic terminology. Note that I do so without reference to such things as "omnipotence," "dreamland," "warped minds," "chips on the shoulder," or "ego," - unlike your post - are you getting it yet?

I'm sorry to be boring.

Apology accepted. But please try to avoid reiterating the same old, tired, lame, nonsensical, unsubstantiated, silly crap in the future.

You find so much to be boring.

Please elaborate on what you mean by this.

Thank you for the advice. I will file away all the preposterous conspiracy theories like those proposed by the 911 Commission, NIST, your partner, etc.

Kindly list what you consider to be preposterous conspiracy theories proposed by the 9/11 Commission, NIST, and my partner. I do not think that you can name a single one, and I think that you know that, but it will be interesting to see your answer.

Apparently you rejoice in labeling those who don't cling to your obsessive beliefs. Fair enough. It's a free world.

I harbour no obsessive beliefs, thus do not cling to same. Kindly elaborate on what you meant by this. Please be specific.

Sacrificing your individuality to become an accepted member of the gang is your perogative.

Do I really need to point out to you that this is yet another baseless personal attack with no foundation in facts, evidence or reality?

Reality, facts and evidence. Hmm. So as a lawyer, you honestly place those ahead of what your client might have to say that conflicts with them?

I do, indeed.

I thought lawyers were less concerned with the truth and more concerned with getting their clients acquitted?

You thought wrong.

You appear to be confused about the role of a criminal defence lawyer (whose job it is to ensure that an accused person gets a fair trial and that the prosecution be required to prove its case) and you seem to misunderstand the rule of law as it appears that you think adhering to it amounts to a disregard for the truth. You are wrong.

You also failed to respond to my question above about what it is that compels you to insinuate that my mind has "been warped by having to defend the guilty". Had you taken the opportunity to try to figure out why your insinuation was incorrect, that may have given you some insight into why you are continuing down the path of poor reading comprehension and/or poor research.

'Tis far better to journey down the better path of reading comprehension and research than to continue to display your ignorance.

Regarding your professional status, I have no way of knowing who you are or what you say you are. You can pretend to be any kind of professional you wish.

It is not true that you have no way of knowing who I am or what I say I am. I have offered you the opportunity to verify my credentials for yourself, in person, at a location convenient to you, at a time convenient to you, and on a day convenient to you, but you have declined.

Lawyers like to influence those who sit in judgment, whether they be the lone judge or the 12 person jury. They don't care so much about the truth as much as what they can make the listener think. I've served on 2 juries so I'm not totally inexperienced in this phenomenon.

Oh, look, a sweeping generalization. And BS, too.

I've observed many of your posts. They are nothing but calculated performances that reveal little concern about thoughtful content and every concern about power presentation. It may please the JREF fan club, but I've met many people at higher levels than yourself and your style only comes across as very juvenile and that of a camp follower.

Oh, look, another sweeping generalization. And BS, too. And yet another personal attack. Gee, big surprise, that.

Now, with all of that out of the way (do you seriously wonder why I find your posts boring and tedious), do you have anything of substance to say about the events of September 11, 2001? Anything at all?

 

[Architect]

MM

As I've mentioned before, I'm a qualified architect working on tall buildings and have studied structures at university level. If you want to take this onto a new thread then I'm willing to debate it with you. I would imagine that some of the others who have studied structures will as well. Just to warn you, however, that we will be talking structural mechanics and figures in some depth, and will expect you to do likewise. Personal incredulity will not cut it.

So, is that a yes or a no MM? Do you wish to open a thread where we can debate structural issues at length, on the understanding that we will be going into issues in depth where necessary and will expect you to respond likewise?

Or is it all bluster?

 

[LashL]

MM

As I've mentioned before, I'm a qualified architect working on tall buildings and have studied structures at university level. If you want to take this onto a new thread then I'm willing to debate it with you. I would imagine that some of the others who have studied structures will as well. Just to warn you, however, that we will be talking structural mechanics and figures in some depth, and will expect you to do likewise. Personal incredulity will not cut it.


ETA: Mackay and others; nane of yer imperial pish. Metric this time, eh?

I certainly hope that miragememories will take you up on this, Architect, and not try to change the subject and weasel out.

But I won't hold my breath.

 

[twinstead]

With all due respect twinstead and Architect, the experts are pushing hypotheses.

There is not enough firm data to firmly argue the actual collapse mechanism with any certainly.

NIST admits they have not more than a hypothesis.

They created 10,000 final pages from probably 100,000 pages of raw notes and even then they stop at 'collapse initiation'!

The NIST report is founded on what they feel are an accumulation of logical assumptions because they lack the accumulation of real data that would serve them more credibly.

One example in particular, I just read here, today, here in the JREF Conspiracy Forum, a post from Pilots for Truth, this pilot trainer who used a 737 simulator, an aircraft even more maneuverable than those that supposedly crashed into WTC 1 & 2, setup New York City in the simulator and had highly skilled commercial pilots attempt collisions with the towers.

They all failed.

It was too difficult at those speeds. Finally, on his 10th attempt, the trainer succeeded in colliding with the WTC but he had to reduce his speed to close to landing speed. NIST had to use extreme aircraft speed to make their collapse simulation work!

I understand the enormity of the problems faced by NIST in trying to analyze the collapses. They assumed some facts, dismissed others, made educated guesses and ultimately derived a simulation that achieved a collapse initiation.

Some experts feel the lengths NIST went to in accepting some values while discarding others was quite satisfactory. Considering all the parameters that effected the end result, and the magnitude of the ranges of acceptability at play, the assumptions, the lack of hard data, the limitations of the model, the bias of a forgone conclusion that impact and fire damage most certainly lead to collapse initiation, etc., the experts simply can't credibly argue through the use of model simulation, some laboratory tests and academia alone that they know the answer!

If it was as simple as presenting formulae and technical explanations as you folks keep attempting to do, NIST wouldn't have wasted so much money, time and effort on generating that 10,000 page tome.

Their defenders are merely regurgitating the NIST document and aren't adding anything new..that hardly counts as numerous independent experts doing their own critical examination. That's just 'rubber stamping'.

Even Greening, a fomer favorite son here, frequently sourced as an argument for explaining the collapses, he now has stepped back and is highly critical of the NIST WTC Collapse Report.

MM

So, you are saying that YOU know more than these experts. Am I correct?

Every expert who disagrees with you is simply 'rubber stamping' a report that they probably don't even read, much less understand, am I correct?

You think that the NIST report is crap, and all the experts who agree with it are simply parroting some ideological agenda without even understanding what the NIST is saying, am I correct?

Just who do you think you are?

 

[Par]

So, the idea is something along the lines of: “You’re a criminal defence lawyer, so you’d be perfectly happy about lying to cover up the murder of thousands of American citizens.”

Just what kind of mentality must someone have in order to come out with that sort of offensively bigoted non-sequitur?